3 ms·
I've been saying this for years. The math is pretty straightforward: as cost of living skyrockets in most cities, any city that has the infrastructure and hous
by debt 8y ago
I've been saying this for years.
The math is pretty straightforward: as cost of living skyrockets in most cities, any city that has the infrastructure and housing to accommodate large numbers of people will win the race.
So for example, at this point San Francisco and the Bay Area are in fact losing the race even though surrounding economy is booming; all because housing is lacking and incredibly unaffordable and there's zero political will to change it.
- acover 8y agoDo you have any evidence? From what it seems like the disparity is increasing between big cities and not.
- debt 8y agoAnecdotally, the push by larger companies to find sister cities to house their 2nd HQ's seems to be lending credence to my theory. The cost of living is high near their HQ so they move all their lower cost operations into another HQ into a lower cost of living areas such as Chicago. Chicago/Austin/NYC welcomes them open arms and huge tax breaks and huge inventory of available housing.
- wuliwong 8y agoThis is the opposite of what is happening if you look at the population changes of their respective MSAs. Chicago's is barely growing and SF added an estimated 9% to the population from 2010-2017. [0] [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistical_areas https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_metropolitan_statistic...
- debt 8y agoGrowth will stagnant once the area reaches capacity. There is no political will to relax zoning to increase housing inventory to meet the new demand as existing residents are becoming very rich from their increased property values.